Roberts Rule of Odor

In Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackman, writing for the majority, made the following arguments in favor of the Constitutionally protected nature of abortion:

“The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.”

It was this paragraph that established the “right to privacy” that is at the core of the “right” to an abortion in the United States. Blackman and the other activist judges conveniently ignored the rights of the unborn child to his or her ultimate privacy, allowing others to invade the unborn child’s home without a search warrant and to take that child’s life. Blackman believed the State has more interest in the mother and whatever notions come into her head than in the child.

But this established a legal precedent, and it is now the law of the land that the citizenry have an inherent right to privacy that may not be easily taken from them by the Law.

If there is a Constitutional protection of privacy, does it not apply more to the Federal government than the individual states? Are the states restricted from making laws that are invasive of privacy but the Federal government is exempt?

The case is now the first case in the nation in which a federal court of appeals would consider challenges to the employer mandate and the Free Exercise of Religion claim. The case could then go back to the Supreme Court in 2013.

By Bill Mears/CNN Supreme Court Producer The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review an abortion-related appeal, a sign the justices were not eager to jump into the contentious social issue. The case dealt Read more